Is switchcoal a reliable source?

I wrote the below but then took it out as not sure right. Any ideas?

According to SwitchCoal the plants are not profitable (they assume 2023 opex of 1 us cent per kwh[1] and a 2012 estimate from another organization was half a eurocent per kwh[2]) and they say switching to solar, wind and batteries at a cost of 4.1 billion dollars would be a good investment. [3] (Turkey is no longer included in sp global dark spread estimates[4]) Chidgk1 (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Switch coal profitably to renewable energy" (PDF).
  2. ^ "Understanding Lignite Generation Costs in Europe" (PDF).
  3. ^ "Afşin Elbistan power stations | SwitchCoal". www.switchcoal.org. Retrieved 2024-07-16.
  4. ^ "Specifications Guide: European Electricity" (PDF).

new source needs adding

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/02/turkiye-plans-harmful-coal-expansion Chidgk1 (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. BigChrisKenney (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Afşin-Elbistan power stations/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chidgk1 (talk · contribs) 08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: BigChrisKenney (talk · contribs) 05:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, @Chidgk1: I will be reviewing this article for the January 2025 backlog elimination drive. BigChrisKenney (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Assesment

Intro

I made some edits you may wish to review.

Afşin-Elbistan A

Proposed expansion

I made some edits you may wish to review.

History

"In 2004 or 2005, an EIA was done re rehabilitation and FGD."

  • I'm not sure what this sentence is talking about. Could you clarify it please?

I made some edits you may wish to review.

Technology

I made some edits you may wish to review.

Afşin-Elbistan B

History

I made some edits you may wish to review.

Opposition

I made an edit you may wish to review.

Cancelled power stations

Afşin-Elbistan C

I deleted duplicate information in the second paragraph that was mentioned in the first paragraph.

In the third paragraph, citation 54 needs to be updated.

I made some edits you may wish to review.

Afşin-Elbistan D and E

I made an edit you may wish to review.

Coal

I made some edits you may wish to review.

Mine

Good!

Disease and deaths

I made some edits you may wish to review.

Economics

I made some edits you may wish to review.

Pollution

Added a comma.

Greenhouse gas emissions

I made some edits you may wish to review.

Opposition

I made some edits you may wish to review.

Public opinion

Good!

Sources

I checked roughly every 5th one.

80 - I could not open the link, also, it is missing information such as when it was retrieved.

6 (privacy concerns)
102 (redirect)

Several links are 404.

13, 14, 23, 46, 64, 93

Images

All are in the public domain or under creative commons.


I had to do a lot of editing in this article, but the content is solid. Please review my comments, in particular; Afşin-Elbistan A → History, Cancelled power stations → Afşin-Elbistan C, and source 80. Once you have reviewed my comments and made some changes, I will come back for a final assesment. BigChrisKenney (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BigChrisKenney Great I like that you have done the edits rather than writing a lot of tiny things here like some reviewers do. Many of them I agree are improvements but there are a few I don’t think are quite right so I will try and explain in edit comments why. However feel free to press your points if my edit comments are wrong or unclear - I won’t be at all offended. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to clarify history of A plant filters - if still unclear please let me know Chidgk1 (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have reported problem with cite 6 to website owner Chidgk1 (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Duh I should have run the cite archiving much earlier. I ran https://feverfew.toolforge.org/check?wiki=enwiki&page=Af%C5%9Fin-Elbistan_power_stations but all or some of the links it thinks are dead are merely slow. Ran IAbot and it did not find any dead links. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BigChrisKenney Are you happy with my fixes above, and is there anything which is still unclear or needs improvement please? Chidgk1 (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Final Assessment

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:

I think the changes made are pertinet and useful. Congratulations to GA! BigChrisKenney (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 07:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by Chidgk1 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 40 past nominations.

Chidgk1 (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: Yes
  • Neutral: No - The phrasing was approved, despite public opposition and apparent contradiction with Turkey’s bid to host the 2026 climate change conference I think goes beyond the line. There's plenty of irony in the situation, which makes it a hooky hook, but there's no direct contradiction in a strict logical sense. That makes it an opinion, something we'd need to attribute to a source rather than putting in wikivoice.
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Yes
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Only apparent copyvio issue comes from a source copying Wikipedia, so we're fine. The phrasing in the lead needs to be made neutral, and overall I worry a little that the article focuses so heavily on criticism of the plant rather than more mundane aspects of its operation. (Also, why isn't there a link to its official site in the external links?) Once this has been addressed, it'll be good to go. Sdkb talk 02:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The links to the official sites are in the infoboxes. I have rewitten the lead to add more history technology and employment. If I can find more positive details I will add them - for example if the company decides to buy the more modern "supercritical" type units for the expansion they will presumably write on their website details of how they are better than than the existing units.
ALT1 ... that Human Rights Watch has criticised Turkey bidding to host the 2026 climate change conference whilst approving expansion of a coal-fired power station?
@Sdkb: is it ok now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 (talk • contribs)
@Chidgk1: Sorry, I should have been clearer that I think the attribution change needs to be in the article lead, not the hook. I'm rather surprised that BigChrisKenney had nothing to say on neutrality during the GA review — this is clearly a controversial facility, so strict scrutiny needs to be paid there.
For the hook itself, if we use a neutral phrase like "while also" rather than a more loaded/opinionated one like "despite," I don't think we'll need attribution in the hook, since we'll just be describing facts. So how about:
ALT2 ... that Turkey approved the expansion of a coal-fired power station while also bidding to host the 2026 United Nations Climate Change Conference?
Cheers, Sdkb talk 15:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb: Oh I see - you are right - I have now changed the lead to source the criticism. Also I deleted a couple of sentences of criticism and added benefit to the current account to make the article more balanced. Re ALT1 or ALT2 I don't mind which. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks sufficient to me. for ALT2. Cheers, Sdkb talk 03:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Af%C5%9Fin-Elbistan_power_stations
No tags for this post.